Advertisement

Superhero or hands-off supervisor? An empirical categorization of PhD supervision styles and student satisfaction in Russian universities

  • Ivan GruzdevEmail author
  • Evgeniy Terentev
  • Zibeyda Dzhafarova
Article
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

This article presents the results of a cross-institutional survey on PhD students’ supervision at Russian universities. It is aimed at answering three questions concerning (1) styles of PhD supervision and their prevalence, (2) the relation between supervision style and PhD students’ satisfaction with their supervisor, and (3) the relation between supervision style and PhD students’ expected time-to-degree. We propose the empirically driven categorization of six supervision styles: superhero, hands-off supervisor, research practice mediator, dialogue partner, mentor, and research advisor. The most problematic category, characterized by providing no help for PhD students, was named “hands-off supervisors.” For this category PhD students reported the lowest level of satisfaction, and the highest expected time-to degree. Nonetheless, the large share of PhD students who are satisfied with hands-off supervisors may evidence a presence of a disengagement compact between PhD students and supervisors in Russian universities. Two categories of supervisors characterized by the highest level of PhD students’ satisfaction and shortest expected time-to-degree were named “superheroes” and “mentors.” These supervisors are reported to perform managerial and expert functions, which emphasizes the critical importance of these functions.

Keywords

Doctoral education Academic supervision Style of supervision Disengagement compact Educational reforms 

Notes

References

  1. Abramov, R. (2010). Transformations of academic autonomy. Educational Studies, 3, 75–91.Google Scholar
  2. Ali, P. A., Watson, R., & Dhingra, K. (2016). Postgraduate research students’ and their supervisors’ attitudes towards supervision. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 227–241.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, S. J. (2004). The impact of supervisors’ cognitive styles on the quality of research supervision in management education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 599–616.Google Scholar
  4. Arzhanova, I. V., & Knyazev, E. A. (2013). The creating of federal universities: conception and reality (in Russian). University Management: Practice and Analysis, 5, 7–14.Google Scholar
  5. Bao, Y., Kehm, B. M., & Ma, Y. (2018). From product to process. The reform of doctoral education in Europe and China. Studies in Higher Education, 43(3), 524–541.Google Scholar
  6. Boehe, D. M. (2016). Supervisory styles: a contingency framework. Studies in Higher Education, 41(3), 399–414.Google Scholar
  7. Cyranoski, D., Gilbert, N., Ledford, H., Nayar, A., & Yahia, M. (2011). The PhD factory. Nature, 472(7343), 276.Google Scholar
  8. De Valero, Y. F. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 341–367.Google Scholar
  9. Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (2000). The doctoral experience: success and failure in graduate school. London: Falmer.Google Scholar
  10. Deuchar, R. (2008). Facilitator, director or critical friend? Contradiction and congruence in doctoral supervision styles. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(4), 489–500.Google Scholar
  11. Devos, C., Van der Linden, N., Boudrenghien, G., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2015). Doctoral supervision in the light of the three types of support promoted in self-determination theory. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 10, 439–464.Google Scholar
  12. Donald, J. G., Saroyan, A., & Denison, D. B. (1995). Graduate student supervision policies and procedures: a case study of issues and factors affecting graduate study. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 71–92.Google Scholar
  13. Enders, J. (2004). Research training and careers in transition: a European perspective on the many faces of the PhD. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(3), 419–429.Google Scholar
  14. Fillery-Travis, A., & Robinson, L. (2018). Making the familiar strange – a research pedagogy for practice. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 841–853.Google Scholar
  15. Fox, M. A. (1997). Graduate students: too many and too narrow? In R. Ehrenberg (Ed.), The American university: national treasure or endangered species? (pp. 100–114). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Franke, A., & Arvidsson, B. (2011). Research supervisors’ different ways of experiencing supervision of doctoral students. Studies in Higher Education, 36(1), 7–19.Google Scholar
  17. Froumin, I., & Dobryakova, M. (2012). What makes Russian universities change: disengagement compact. Educational Studies, 2, 159–191.Google Scholar
  18. Gardner, S. K. (2008). ‘What’s too much and what’s too little?’: the process of becoming an independent researcher in doctoral education. The Journal of Higher Education, 79, 326–350.Google Scholar
  19. Gatfield, T. (2005). An investigation into PhD supervisory management styles: development of a dynamic conceptual model and its managerial implications. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(3), 311–325.Google Scholar
  20. Gillingham, L., Seneca, J. J., & Taussig, M. K. (1991). The determinants of progress to the doctoral degree. Research in Higher Education, 32(4), 449–468.Google Scholar
  21. Golde, C. M. (2000). Should I stay or should I go? Student descriptions of the doctoral attrition process. Review of Higher Education, 23(4), 199–228.Google Scholar
  22. Grant, K., Hackney, R., & Edgar, D. (2014). Postgraduate research supervision: an ‘agreed’ conceptual view of good practice through derived metaphors. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 9, 43–60.Google Scholar
  23. Grover, V., & Malhotra, M. K. (2003). Interaction between a doctoral student and advisor: making it work. Decision Line, 34(1), 16–18.Google Scholar
  24. Gurr, G. M. (2001). Negotiating the “rackety bridge”—a dynamic model for aligning supervisory style with research student development. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 81–92.Google Scholar
  25. Halse, C. (2007). Is the doctorate in crisis? Nagoya. Journal of Higher Education, 7, 321–337.Google Scholar
  26. Halse, C., & Malfroy, J. (2010). Retheorizing doctoral supervision as professional work. Studies in Higher Education, 35(1), 79–92.Google Scholar
  27. Harman, G. (2003). PhD student satisfaction with course experience and supervision in two Australian research-intensive universities. Prometheus: Critical Studies in Innovation, 21(3), 312–333.Google Scholar
  28. Hockey, J. (1991). The social science PhD: a literature review. Studies in Higher Education, 16(3), 319–332.Google Scholar
  29. Holdaway, E., Deblois, C., & Winchester, I. (1995). Supervision of graduate students. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 25(3), 1–29.Google Scholar
  30. Jiranek, V. (2010). Potential predictors of timely completion among dissertation research students at an Australian faculty of science. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 5, 1–13.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, W. B., & Huwe, J. M. (2003). Getting mentored in graduate school. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  32. Kehm, B. M. (2006). Doctoral education in Europe and North America: a comparative analysis. Wenner Gren International Series, 83, 67.Google Scholar
  33. Kuh, G. D. (1999). How are we doing? Tracking the quality of the undergraduate experience, 1960s to the present. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), 99–120.Google Scholar
  34. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change, 35(2), 24–32.Google Scholar
  35. Lee, A. (2008). How are doctoral students supervised? Concepts of doctoral research supervision. Studies in Higher Education, 33(3), 267–281.Google Scholar
  36. Linden, N., Frenay, M., & Galand, B. (2016). Misfits between doctoral students and their supervisors:(how) are they regulated? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 11, 467–486.Google Scholar
  37. Lipschutz, S. S. (1993). Enhancing success in doctoral education: from policy to practice. New Directions for Institutional Research, 80, 69–80.Google Scholar
  38. Mainhard, T., Van Der Rijst, R., Van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2009). A model for the supervisor–doctoral student relationship. Higher Education, 58(3), 359–373.Google Scholar
  39. Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019a). National barriers to the completion of doctoral programs at Russian universities. Higher Education, 77 (2), 195–211.Google Scholar
  40. Maloshonok, N., & Terentev, E. (2019b). Towards a new model of doctoral education: the experience of Russian universities to improve the effectiveness of PhD programs. Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, 3 (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  41. Nerad, M. (2004). The PhD in the US: criticisms, facts, and remedies. Higher Education Policy, 17(2), 183–199.Google Scholar
  42. Park, C. (2005). New variant PhD: the changing nature of the doctorate in the UK. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 27(2), 189–207.Google Scholar
  43. Pearson, M. (2005). Framing research on doctoral education in Australia in a global context. Higher Education Research and Development, 24(2), 119–134.Google Scholar
  44. Powell, S., & Green, H. (2007). The doctorate worldwide. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).Google Scholar
  45. Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2015). Fit matters in the supervisory relationship: doctoral students and supervisors perceptions about the supervisory activities. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(1), 4–16.Google Scholar
  46. Rose, G. L. (2005). Group differences in graduate students’ concepts of the ideal mentor. Research in Higher Education, 46(1), 53–80.Google Scholar
  47. Russian Federal State Statistics. (2018). http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/education/. Accessed 28 July 2019.
  48. Sadlak, J. (Ed.). (2004). Doctoral studies and qualifications in Europe and the United States: status and prospects. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.Google Scholar
  49. Seagram, B. C., Gould, J., & Pyke, S. W. (1998). An investigation of gender and other variables on time to completion of doctoral degrees. Research in Higher Education, 39, 319.Google Scholar
  50. Sinclair, M. (2004). The pedagogy of good 'PhD supervision: a national cross-disciplinary investigation of PhD supervision. – Canberra : Department of Education, Science and Training, 2004.Google Scholar
  51. Taylor, S., Kiley, M., & Humphrey, R. (2017). A handbook for doctoral supervisors. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  52. Taylor, R. T., Vitale, T., Tapoler, C., & Whaley, K. (2018). Desirable qualities of modern doctorate advisors in the USA: a view through the lenses of candidates, graduates, and academic advisors. Studies in Higher Education, 43(5), 854–866.Google Scholar
  53. Van Ours, J. C., & Ridder, G. (2003). Fast track or failure: a study of the graduation and dropout rates of PhD students in economics. Economics of Education Review, 22(2), 157–166.Google Scholar
  54. Wao, H. O., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2011). A mixed research investigation of factors related to time to the doctorate in education. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 6, 115–134.Google Scholar
  55. Zavgorodnayaya, O. (2016). The institute of PhD awarding in Russia and doctoral education: convergence or divergence. Higher Education in Russia and Beyond, 3(9), 7–9.Google Scholar
  56. Zhao, C. M., Golde, C. M., & McCormick, A. C. (2007). More than a signature: how advisor choice and advisor behaviour affect doctoral student satisfaction. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(3), 263–281.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Gruzdev
    • 1
    Email author
  • Evgeniy Terentev
    • 2
  • Zibeyda Dzhafarova
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Institutional ResearchNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Centre of Sociology of Higher EducationNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Centre of Sociology of Higher EducationNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations